Literature DB >> 16351842

Comparative methods in developmental biology.

M K Richardson1, J E Jeffery, M I Coates, O R Bininda-Emonds.   

Abstract

The need for a phylogenetic framework is becoming appreciated in many areas of biology. Such a framework has found limited use in developmental studies. Our current research program is therefore directed to applying comparative and phylogenetic methods to developmental data. In this paper, we examine the concepts underlying this work, discuss potential difficulties, and identify some solutions. While developmental biologists frequently make cross-species comparisons, they usually adopt a phenetic approach, whereby degrees of overall similarity in development are sought. Little emphasis is placed on reconstructing the evolutionary divergence in developmental characters. Indeed, developmental biologists have historically concentrated on apparently 'conserved' or 'universal' developmental mechanisms. Thus, there has been little need for phylogenetic methodologies which analyse specialised features shared only within a subset of species (i.e., synapomorphies). We discuss the potential value of such methodologies, and argue that difficulties in adapting them to developmental studies fall into three interlinked areas: One concerns the nature and definition of developmental characters. Another is the difficulty of identifying equivalent developmental stages in different species. Finally the phylogenetic non-independence of developmental characters presents real problems under some protocols. These problems are not resolved. However, it is clear that the application of phylogenetic methodology to developmental data is both necessary and fundamental to research into the relationship between evolution and development.

Year:  2001        PMID: 16351842     DOI: 10.1078/0944-2006-00033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Zoology (Jena)        ISSN: 0944-2006            Impact factor:   2.240


  7 in total

Review 1.  Unburdening evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney.

Authors:  Ronald A Jenner
Journal:  Dev Genes Evol       Date:  2006-05-30       Impact factor: 0.900

2.  Timing of ossification in duck, quail, and zebra finch: intraspecific variation, heterochronies, and life history evolution.

Authors:  Christian Mitgutsch; Corinne Wimmer; Marcelo R Sánchez-Villagra; Richard Hahnloser; Richard A Schneider
Journal:  Zoolog Sci       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.931

3.  A standard system to study vertebrate embryos.

Authors:  Ingmar Werneburg
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-06-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Heterochrony and developmental modularity of cranial osteogenesis in lipotyphlan mammals.

Authors:  Daisuke Koyabu; Hideki Endo; Christian Mitgutsch; Gen Suwa; Kenneth C Catania; Christoph Pe Zollikofer; Sen-Ichi Oda; Kazuhiko Koyasu; Motokazu Ando; Marcelo R Sánchez-Villagra
Journal:  Evodevo       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 2.250

Review 5.  Theories, laws, and models in evo-devo.

Authors:  Michael K Richardson
Journal:  J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 2.368

6.  Unraveling the origin of Cladocera by identifying heterochrony in the developmental sequences of Branchiopoda.

Authors:  Martin Fritsch; Olaf Rp Bininda-Emonds; Stefan Richter
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 3.172

Review 7.  The revolutionary developmental biology of Wilhelm His, Sr.

Authors:  Michael K Richardson; Gerhard Keuck
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2022-02-01
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.